Archive for January 12th, 2009

We Must Overcome Our Fear of Islam (08/03/2007)

Monday, January 12th, 2009

What do you call a photograph of a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of urine?

If you’re part of the liberal establishment, you might call it “modern art” worthy of a generous taxpayer-funded grant.

Or how about the burning of an American flag in a protest? Our courts say that act is protected as freedom of speech.

Now, what do you call a Koran submerged in a toilet? If you were part of the liberal elite, you’d call it a “hate-crime” and a felony punishable by up to two years in prison.

Perhaps you remember my first example. “Piss Christ” was the blasphemous photograph that won an art competition and $15,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts. But you may not yet have heard about the student at Pace University in New York who was arrested last week on charges of criminal mischief and aggravated harassment (both felonies) for twice throwing a Koran into university toilets.

Pace University — which stands just four blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan and lost four students and over 40 alumni on September 11, 2001 — initially classified the incidents as vandalism. But after some prodding by Muslim students and the perpetually outraged Council for American Islamic Relations, university officials capitulated and referred the matter to the New York City Police Department’s Hate Crimes Task Force, which, naturally, deemed the student’s actions “hate crimes.”

Ridiculous as they are, these stories help highlight a perverse double standard that has emerged in recent years, one that elevates Islam to a protected status, while continuing to treat Christianity as the source of all that ails America.

The double standard explains why Kansas City International Airport recently added several foot washing basins in restrooms to accommodate Muslim taxi cab drivers who use them to prepare for daily Islamic prayer. It also makes clear why Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport allows Muslim taxi cab drivers to refuse to carry passengers possessing alcoholic beverages or accompanied by seeing-eye dogs, because in Islam, alcohol is forbidden, and dogs are considered unclean.

Meanwhile, last Christmas the Seattle-Tacoma Airport removed its Christmas trees because of their religious symbolism.

Even worse is the double standard in some of America’s public schools, where an intense effort to “Islamicize” curricula and textbooks is underway. In California, groups like the Council on Islamic Education and the Islamic Society of North America have succeeded in integrating the fundamentals of reading and writing with lessons about the life of Muhammad and the finer points of Sharia Law.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided that parents of Christian students could not sue a school district where seventh-graders pretended to be Muslims for three weeks during a course in world history. The court — the same one which previously ruled that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance are “unconstitutional” — insisted that the role-playing game, which included having children recite Muslim prayers and lines from the Koran, did not violate anybody’s constitutional rights. In fact, the Ninth Circuit (incidentally the most overturned appeals court in the country) declared that the activities weren’t “overt religious exercises” that would raise concerns under the First Amendment prohibition of “establishment of religion.”

While it is easy to see that a religious double standard exists among our elites, identifying its source is rather more difficult. A misplaced multiculturalism and habitual anti-Christian bigotry are certainly parts of the problem, but its primary source is fear. It’s a fear that stems from the knowledge that behind each public statement of outrage and press release alleging desecration of the Koran, behind each cry for equality and respect, there is an underlying threat of violence. This fear is certainly rational, because radical Muslims have proven time and time again that perceived affronts to Islam, if not fully atoned for, may be answered with violence.

Fear prevents the mainstream media — which no doubt remember the fate of journalists killed for publishing cartoons deemed insulting to Islam — from linking blatant acts of Islamic terrorism in the United States to religion. When 22-year-old Muslim student Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar deliberately rammed his SUV into a crowd at the University of North Carolina in order to, in his words, “punish the government of the U.S.” for invading Iraq and other Muslim nations, most of the media were silent as to the cause. When in court Taheri-azar insisted his rampage was the “will of Allah,” some in the media still seemed dumbfounded, calling the actions of this unassuming honors student “inexplicable.”

Fear also explains, though scarcely justifies, why Pace University officials reacted so harshly to the Koran-dunking incident. (The offending student could face four years in prison.) Perhaps University officials recall how Newsweek’s story falsely claiming that American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet sparked deadly demonstrations in Afghanistan and violent protests throughout the Middle East.

Meanwhile, the liberal establishment can continue mocking evangelicals and spouting anti-Christian bigotry without fear of reprisal. When talk show host Rosie O’Donnell alleged that, “…radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America,” her vitriol was met not with murderous threats or violent demonstrations but with verbal responses refuting the substance of her claim.

Christians responded similarly this spring when Burlington Township High School in New Jersey held a mock terror attack and chose to portray the bad guys as members of a right-wing fundamentalist group called the “New Crusaders.” The school said the group did not believe in separation of church and state and was seeking justice because the daughter of one of its members had been expelled for praying before class. I am not aware of any Christian group that has violently taken over a school anywhere in the world. But there are frequent attacks by Islamists on teachers and students. Yet the school’s authorities felt no hesitancy in labeling Christians as potential terrorists.

The double standard tells us a lot about America’s elites. They cower before Islam while bashing the faith held by the great majority of Americans.

Democrats: Stuck Between Iraq and The Anti-War Left (7/27/2007)

Monday, January 12th, 2009

Between the proverbial rock and a hard place stands the leadership of today’s Democratic Party. Though you wouldn’t know it from mainstream media coverage, much of the Democratic base, though war-weary, supports the troops and is uneasy about an over-hasty withdrawal from Iraq. But a vocal, small, and increasingly influential anti-war Left revels in maligning the troops and unabashedly rooting for U.S. defeat in Iraq.

For months, Democrats have been trying to pacify both constituencies.

Consider Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who insists he supports the troops and understands that “America’s security must come first,” but is also leading congressional efforts to force President Bush to withdraw prematurely from Iraq. Reid has for months declared the current mission “lost,” and has called the Iraq war the “worst foreign policy mistake in U.S. history.”

Reid’s is an untenable position. While a person can criticize the war and still support the troops, Reid surely understands that as majority leader his public actions and remarks have served to undercut troop morale and embolden an enemy galvanized by such blatant signs of defeatism by America’s political elite.

The ridiculousness of Reid’s contradictory positions (which anti-Iraq war columnist Joel Stein has called “one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have taken”) underscores the power struggle within the Democratic Party between the fringe anti-war Left and mainstream Democrats.

Two recent incidents help illustrate that struggle’s manifestations.

Two weeks ago, Democratic leaders tried to attach an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that would have mandated sending terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay to the United States. The amendment was eventually pulled and replaced with a Republican amendment that did the exact opposite, prohibiting sending terrorists to the United States. That amendment passed overwhelmingly, and, revealingly, every Democrat sponsor of the original amendment to shut down GITMO ended up voting for the alternative.

Such apparent capriciousness was the by-product of a keen insight: despite the cries of the anti-war activists about alleged, inhospitable conditions for terrorist prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, most Americans are more concerned about having terrorists living next door.

Here’s another example. Last year, U.S. Airways removed six Imams from a flight due to passenger complaints about their very erratic and unusual behavior. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) filed a lawsuit against U.S. Airways, seeking unspecified monetary damages for false arrest, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other alleged offenses. But CAIR went even further, actually naming several of the airline passengers who reported concerns about the imams’ behavior as defendants in the case.

In response, conservatives in the House of Representatives introduced legislation to protect “John Doe” citizens who report suspicious behavior from frivolous lawsuits. In March, House Republicans forced a vote on the bill, and it was approved, 304-121.

But, last week, liberal Democrats, in negotiations with their Senate counterparts, stripped the legislation out of the final Homeland Security bill. An attempt in the Senate to attach the “John Doe” protections to an education bill failed to overcome a Democrat filibuster.

So Democrats voted for the bill on the House floor, but then waited until the dead of summer, at the end of the week, to strip it out in a conference committee when they thought no one was paying attention.

Why would they do that? Democrats know this bill is overwhelmingly popular with the American people. It received strong majority support in both the House (304 votes) and Senate (57 votes). Yet, Democrats were set to cave in to the extreme elements of their party. (Fortunately, the conservative media was paying attention, and after a flurry of bad press, liberals in Congress finally acquiesced to Republican demands to include the “John Doe” provision.)

The anti-war movement began four years ago as smug anti-Bushism, but the movement has evolved. It is now animated by something far more nefarious: the obscene belief that America and Israel are the source of all that ails the Middle East and that Americans, not the Islamofascists, are the enemy.

One need only visit leftwing websites like MoveOn.org and the Daily Kos to understand how much the extreme Left desires America’s defeat in Iraq and beyond. Recent revelations that scurrilous stories in The New Republic and The Nation portraying our soldiers in a very negative light may have been fabricated can be seen as the effects of the Left’s uncontrollable desire to think the worst of its fellow citizens.

But you will rarely hear criticism of the anti-war Left by today’s Democrats. That’s because, as Time magazine’s Joe Klein has written, “a fierce bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. Anyone who doesn’t move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed…” Appeasement of the anti-war fringe was behind the Democrats’ fruitless legislative session last week, held through the night even though everyone knew Democrats didn’t have enough votes to pass an amendment calling for the draw down of troops starting in four months. But Reid and the Democrats needed to show their Leftwing that they were trying.

Despite all their kowtowing to the Left, Reid et. al. are keenly aware that most Democrats who believe Iraq is a mess also understand, as a fresh study from the liberal Brookings Institution states, that a precipitous withdrawal could bring “a humanitarian nightmare” in which “we should expect hundreds of thousands (conceivably even millions) of people to die.” Many responsible Democrats, though they want our troops to come home, also refuse to believe the worst about the troops and do not support bringing terrorist suspects to the U.S. or penalizing concerned citizens for reporting suspicious behavior.

Today’s Democrats are trying to appease two distinct constituencies, which may explain Congress’s all-time low approval numbers. But, with 2008 looming, they will have to decide whether to stand for victory against Islamofascism and take their lumps from the extreme Leftwing or whether to align with the anti-American bullies who hope for their own country’s destruction. For most Americans, that would not be a tough choice.